Procedural Unfairness leads to Award

The Complainant argued that his redundancy had been handled unfairly and without proper procedural safeguards. He stated that he had been shocked when informed in August 2024 that his role was at risk, particularly as he had previously played a central role in the development of the business. He maintained that he had effectively acted as a founder within the “business within a business” structure and had been heavily involved in technical operations, project delivery and strategic decisions. He contended that management had excluded him from meetings and business planning from 2023 onward, while secretly pursuing a strategic shift that ultimately led to his redundancy. He criticised the absence of a selection matrix, the lack of consultation documentation, and the failure to provide an appeal mechanism. He also compared his treatment unfavourably to that of a junior colleague whose redundancy process was more structured and delayed for several months after his own dismissal.

The Respondent maintained that the dismissal arose from a genuine redundancy situation caused by a sustained downturn in project-based business. It explained that the company had transitioned from a projects model to a resource-based model because customer demand for external project delivery had significantly reduced. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s role, along with another project-related role, became unsustainable within that restructuring process. It stated that an “at risk” meeting was held in August 2024, followed by consultation meetings during September, although the process was delayed due to the Complainant’s bereavement leave. During consultation, several alternative positions were discussed, including temporary and permanent assignments, but the Complainant rejected them. The Respondent argued that it had acted reasonably throughout and had sought HR guidance before commencing the redundancy exercise. While it accepted liability for additional contractual notice pay under the 2016 contract, it denied that the redundancy itself was unfair.

The Adjudicating found that a genuine redundancy situation existed and accepted the Respondent’s evidence that commercial difficulties justified the closure of the projects-based business unit. The evidence demonstrated a downturn in revenue, reduced project opportunities and a strategic business restructuring. However, while the dismissal was substantively justified, the Adjudicator concluded that the redundancy process was procedurally deficient. The Complainant had not received minutes of consultation meetings, there was limited documentary evidence supporting the consultation process, and no appeal mechanism had been offered. The Adjudicator also noted inconsistencies between the Complainant’s process and the later redundancy process applied to another employee. Although the Complainant argued that LIFO should have applied and that he was effectively a founder, these arguments were rejected. The Adjudicator held that he remained an employee despite his seniority and involvement in strategic matters. Compensation of €15,000 was awarded for procedural unfairness under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Employers should:

• Ensure that both the substantive and procedural aspects of the process are carefully handled. Even where a genuine redundancy situation clearly exists, deficiencies in consultation or documentation may still result in a finding of unfair dismissal. Employers should maintain comprehensive written records of all meetings, consultation discussions and alternative roles considered throughout the process. 
   
  
• Ensure consultation be meaningful and transparent. Employees should receive copies of meeting notes or minutes, clear explanations regarding selection criteria, and sufficient opportunity to respond to proposals. Where more than one employee is affected, employers should apply objective and consistent criteria across all individuals to avoid allegations of unequal treatment or procedural inconsistency. 
   
  
• Ensure that contractual entitlements are fully reviewed before termination. Discrepancies between historic and updated contracts can create liability for unpaid notice or redundancy calculations. A formal appeal mechanism should always be incorporated into redundancy procedures, even where redundancy appears unavoidable. Independent HR advice and robust internal processes can significantly reduce legal exposure and demonstrate procedural fairness if the dismissal is later scrutinised before an adjudication body or employment tribunal.
  

The full case can be found here.